Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the trial was vitiated because a warrant case, tried summarily under the Essential Commodities Act, was conducted by following the procedure applicable to summons cases instead of the procedure prescribed for warrant cases.
Analysis: The offence was punishable with imprisonment up to three years and therefore fell within the category of a warrant case. In a summary trial of such an offence, the procedure applicable to warrant cases had to be followed as far as may be under Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate, however, examined and cross-examined all witnesses on the same date and did not follow the sequential stages required for warrant-case trial, including framing of charge and giving the accused the proper opportunity to cross-examine after pleading and to enter upon defence. A trial conducted in a manner different from that prescribed by the Code is illegal, and such defect is not cured by Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The deviation also caused prejudice to the accused.
Conclusion: The trial was vitiated, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh trial in accordance with law.